If so much is fake, who or what can we rely on?

By September 3 2012, 11:07 am 5 Comments
Tagged:

 

There really isn’t much to rely on any more.  For thousands of years people have had faith in kings, gods, priests or shamans.

In the last decade we’ve heard time and again that people have lost faith in religious institutions, government, authority, and the monarchy.

We understand instead that consumers would rather trust the opinion of “someone like me” than any kind of spokesperson, senior management or professional expert.  Of course, often, that “someone like me” is found online, and can be a stranger, not just a friend, acquaintance or family.  

But headlines now abound that are revealing the huge volume of dissimulation online which can only increase public cynicism even further.

Twitter is full of parody.  Facebook has acknowledged 83 million fake accounts.  Book reviews are for sale.  Even magazines renowned for their fact checking,  like the New Yorker, get duped by their own writers. 

And if you thought that people out there know that they can trust what the adverts say then think again.  They don’t (they don’t accept the “legal, decent, honest and truthful” rule that I am sure I have understood for ever about TV advertising).   As readers of my earlier blog on this subject will be aware we have found that there is a massive marketing truth deficit in the UK.  

As trust disappears in the wild west of online dialogue and the traditional upholders of truth no longer have authority then people will seek certainty elsewhere.

Step forward brands.  There really is an opportunity right now to step change a brand’s image and prospects.  By focussing not on becoming famous by being entertaining, or for being cheap or being used by celebrities, or having lots of “likes” but for telling it like it is.   There is the opportunity to gain massive competitive advantage.   

My book Tell the Truth gives 8 clear techniques for delivering competitive advantage.   

High noon is approaching.  The time to stand up for something that you believe it.  To create the brand that is the truth telling sheriff in the wild west of 21st century fakery.

  • Mike Baker

    Hopefully not at a heavily discounted price. Some points
    1. In the Option process, the prices were pegged back for sponsors based on 2010 prices to protect their interests.
    2. Many sponsors exercised their right not to buy anything in the Option process which left a sizeable hole.
    3. Government consultation on the London Games established that unsold panels (of which there were, and still are, thousands in the Game zones) would still be liable to pay their business rates and contractual obligations to owners like TfL
    4. The extended non-compete categories within vicinity boundaries
    represent no more than 5% of all advertising (no food, drink,
    toiletries, finance, retail, motors, household stores etc).
    5. Sponsors should not feel aggrieved if there are deals or shorter periods available, they can benefit from exactly the same opportunities now as any other authorised advertiser.
    6. All advertisers should be aware that there are still plenty of outdoor sites to go round during London 2012.
    7. As to whether auctions are the future, let’s see how Rio chooses to run it.

    • Maisie McCabe

      Thanks Mike – it’s very interesting to hear we’re talking about “thousands” of sites. Especially since the auction went so well.

  • William stickers

    ‘Sponsors should not feel aggrieved if there are deals or shorter periods available, they can benefit from exactly the same opportunities now as any other authorised advertiser’.

    Well they wouldn’t of been aggrieved at all if informed at the outset of the auction process that the organisers reserved the right to lower prices and offer shorter duration display periods ,even to non-sponsors, in the event of demand falling  someway short of supply.Which is clearly the case here.and some sponsors are aggrieved.or is it just another rumour that there’s some hefty re-negotiation going on.And might it not of been prudent for somebody-outdoor buyers ,auction organisers ,outdoor industry trade body etc-to of checked whether all those unique opportunities created by rapacious shopping mall owners and others to cash in on proximity to the games were actually legal in a planning sense.

    I agree with Wobbly Clark-auction dogs dinner.Read more: http://ivanclark.mediaweek.co.uk/2012/02/06/an-olympic-dog%e2%80%99s-dinner/#ixzz1lmp8t3ho

  • William stickers

    And hats off to Maisie McCabe for spotting the discrepancy..

  • Patrick M

    However elusive the truth, fact and extraordinary insight into our world seems more appealing than spin, cover ups and dishonesty.

    That the industry is percieved as murky is a reflection of its people and the horrible agency politics which taints everyday life in the big agencies.

Jobs